I heard someone say this off color comment and I've heard it before. What I've found online seems to be really dense can anyone help me out?

When looking at this topic, the only real ideas that spring to mind involve Hitler and Mussolini's similar tactics to Lenin in their individual journey of consolidation of power. Yet, so much rhetoric and anti-communist propaganda was produced. During the postwar period, were there many instances where these projects are contradictory in nature?

Were people shocked that such things existed? Were there naysayers who claimed it was a hoax? How would your typical person living in the 1800 react to the news?

I have been reading about the American Revolution and one thing that struck me as odd was that the British used bayonets frequently, but the Americnans did not use bayonets. Several battles seemed to have turned in favor the British after bayonet charge.

I read one passage where General Baron Von Steuben (father of the Amercan Army) said that the Americans thought bayonets were for roasting meat. Why is this?

I'm currently rolling episodes of Great British Baking Show on Netflix back-to-back, and all the talk of gluten, proofing times, and whatnot has me interested in how well we knew the chemistry that backs up all that happens in the baking process. Bread has been around for quite a while, but when did we start to figure out what was going on in the alchemy underneath those golden loaves? When was cake, cookie, and biscuit baking turned into a science?

Pinging /u/agentdcf for bread knowledge and /u/Qweniden due to curiousity if it overlaps with a greater understanding of yeast and fermentation in brewing.

I am asking about the period between the Fall of Western Roman Empire and the Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. My question is: were they treated as tourist attractions and historical monuments, or were they simply ignored?

I mean the man on the street, rather than intellectuals.

Was it very different from now?

If I stood for election as a "socialist" politician in, say, 1880s Britain, what kind of laws would people expect me to advocate?

I'm just wondering what sort of cultural mythology or explanation might have been going on to explain the millions of people who were taken away in ships never to return. I realize there were plenty of Africans and African states which were complicit with the slave trade, so I realize some knew the specifics, but i'm asking more generally -- were most Africans, in Africa, in the areas affected by the slave trade aware of Plantations and the vast industrialized slavery across the ocean?

Edit: So I just wanted to clarify a couple things since this is a question about a sensitive topic and I don't want anyone to misconstrue the question or my intent:

By saying "africans were complicit in the slave trade" i'm only looking at objective facts, not an analysis of the power relationships that led to that complicity, or anything like that, which obviously complicates the issue. I had a hard time wording the question that recognized some basic facts (so as to narrow down the question for people to answer) but also did justice to those assumptions... so long story short, i'm just looking for an answer to the specific question of how various groups of Africans explained or mythologized the several centuries worth of human exportation.

Along the coasts and at the major slave ports I'd assume they had a pretty good idea of what was going on, but what about further inland? Did the stories change the further into the African hinterlands one went?

I'm reading Anthony Beevor's book "Berlin" and he mentions the following:

"....Komsomol members also helped the barely literate ones write letters home. They were particularly proud of having bought a T-34 tank with their own money. Their tank ‘Komsomolets’ had already ‘destroyed a few enemy tanks and other armoured vehicles and crushed many Fritzes under its tracks’."

Could Russian soldiers buy a tank themselves? How would this work?

Let's say during the Han dynasty, but later dynasties can have relevance.

TIL that though a lot of historians agree that carthage was founded 814B.C , we have no evidence or physical proof about what happened there during the first century of the young settlement , in other words from 814B.C till around 700B.C . Has anyone further informations about the subject ?

Both men and women used to wear makeup regularly. Why did men stop and not women? I mean "beauty enhancement" makeup not visual fx, war paint and the like. I'm specifically thinking about nobility in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Apologies if this is off-topic or against the rules.

In other words: was the hostility and violence of encounters between Native Americans and early Americans/colonists the foregone conclusion we see in popular American culture? Was it ever possible to set up camp on the fringes of a colony and not concern yourself with being ambushed by Natives?

I'm asking only about the area of what is now the continental United States, but it's hard to pinpoint a specific time period I'm asking about here. However, since I'm asking about a time when Native Americans would have been numerous and prevalent enough to pose a significant threat to the average person - I guess I'm necessarily asking about the 18th century and before.

Anyhow - there were several "Indian Wars", as most of us are aware, and it's pretty obvious the Native Americans did not have an overall positive relationship with the nascent USA/colonies; but was the American frontier really as violent and dangerous for colonists/citizens as portrayed in films/popular culture?

I find it hard to believe that going beyond the frontier of, say, the Ohio Territory in the Colonial Period would have been fraught with shootouts and ambushes and the equivalent to operating behind enemy lines, as it is almost universally portrayed... But then again, it'd be entirely reasonable for Native Americans to attack a white man on sight.

Thanks in advance!

I know that the Sherman performed pretty well under soviet service, but how did other lend lease tanks perform, such as the Valentine, Stuart, Matilda etc. I have found that most sources only mention the performance of these vehicles on the Eastern front very briefly, if at all.